On Thursday 17 April 2008 05:50, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > > Yuck. IMO, the application developer MIGHT on occasion want that > > level of control available, but forcing him to use it for every single > > database access is sub-standard API design. > > I never suggested that prepared statements _replace_ the current nsdb, > but add to it. You would still be able to use ns_db (select, exec, > etc.) if you don't want and/or need prepared statements for a query.
Just note that there is no difference between: 1. requiring someone to change from [ns_db exec] to [ns_pg_exec] and 2. requiring someone to change from [ns_db exec] to [ns_db prepared...] This is true because the statement itself is different for each database, some use :var, some use positional ?, and some use $1. And prepared statements are multi-command replacements. Personally I use [ns_db exec] exclusively and use the return code to handle things like dml, select, 1row, 0or1row, etc., otherwise you are forced to use a catch for no other reason than to recover and return an useful error message. tom jackson -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
